The
truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in
human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who
speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God. Thus, faith requires us to
profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire mystery, who moves from
incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as
well as the fulfillment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity,
and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, will teach this
“entire truth” to the Apostles and, through them,
to the whole Church —Dominus Jesus (§6)
Dominus Jesus was issued on the Feast of the Transfiguration
in 2000. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was then Prefect of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. Though not “inspired,” perhaps, in any
technical sense, still the document was “prophetic.” It represents the
teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. In many ways, it is
one of the most instructive and incisive of all recent papal documents.
As I look back on it now, it was a document meant to recall the
central teaching of what Christianity is about. But even more, perhaps,
it was to inspire Christians with the courage of their mission, which
remains to go forth and teach all nations what Christ has asked and
commanded. 1
It does indicate that we should be prudent, and theologically accurate,
in whatever we do. But it does not say: “Go forth and teach all
nations, except Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Chinese
communists, sincere secularists, or Hindus.” This would, in practice,
only leave a few African pagans who are not yet Muslim or Christian.
The fact is that, even with all the technological means available to
us today, politically and culturally, it is less and less possible to
teach and present Catholicism outside its own confines, and it is often
under attack there. Freedom of religion is today much narrower than at
almost any time in modern history. “Hate language” legislation has
become largely a democratic, totalitarian tool to silence any real
freedom of religion.
The document begins by stating what the Church itself is obliged to
do and teach. It defines positions which deviate from that central
purpose that is put into the world by Christ. It is thus of great
significance to know just who and what Christ was and is—God? a prophet?
a zealous man? a madman? “The Church’s universal mission is born from
the command of Jesus Christ, and is fulfilled in the course of the
centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son, as saving
event for all humanity” (§1). Obviously, at the end of the second
millennium, “this mission is still far from complete” (§2).
At this point, many begin to wonder: “Why is it not complete?” Surely
two thousand years is enough time to give to a divine project. The
implication is either that it really is not divine, or that the folks in
charge, the pope and the hierarchy, have constantly botched the job,
misunderstanding the mission. Many, therefore, want to find another way
to salvation, one that would utilize other religions and rites.
Christianity is only one among many ways, not the way. Dominus Jesus
reaffirms the centrality of the Church and the place of Christ, true
man and true God. It also relates the truths, found in other religions
and philosophies, to the purposes of revelation.
Citing Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9 about the “necessity” to preach the Gospel, Dominus Jesus
“explains the Magisterium’s particular attention to giving reasons for,
and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all, in
connection with the religious traditions of the world.” Inter-religious
dialogue does not replace the need to evangelize. There is only one way
of salvation. Inter-religious dialogue is designed that Catholicism be
understood by other faiths, and that the Church itself knows exactly
what other faiths hold. This mutual understanding is not conceived as an
assault on other religions, but as a respectful understanding of how
they think of themselves. Likewise, the Church has been misunderstood
and misrepresented too often over the centuries to look kindly on the
deliberate or inaccurate understanding of what it actually teaches and
practices. It does not hide what it holds and teaches.
Dominus Jesus takes up “what has been taught in previous
Magisterial documents, in order to reiterate certain truths that are
part of the Christian faith” (§3). “The Church’s constant missionary
proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to
justify religious pluralism, not only de facto, but also de jure”
(§4). Relativism holds that there is no single religious truth. All
religions have something that is admirable. Therefore, religions should
be joined together in a kind of world parliament of religion, under some
larger cultural or political authority, which would define the limits
of belief and religious practice. The claim to preserve a genuine
revelation, and to make it known, is considered a threat to all
religions. In this theory, Catholicism becomes the real enemy of
religions in the world.
The following basic doctrines of revelation, in this new order view, have now been “superseded”:
The definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ,
the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other
religions, the inspired nature of the books of Scared Scripture, the
personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity
of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit; the unicity
and salvic universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal
salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability—while recognizing
the distinction—of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the
Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic
Church (§4).
These positions are controverted on all sides. The Church has the
duty to remain itself, in all ages, to teach what was handed down to it.
This is the good that Christ was sent into the world to make clear. His
teaching was about the ultimate human purpose, and how it was to be
achieved.
The document immediately states the philosophical and theological
background to the objections against the truth of this revelation. Every
objection to the truth of revelation will have its roots in an
alternate intellectual system. What are these presuppositions?
- The conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation;
- Relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which, what is true for some, would not be true for others;
- The radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West, and the symbolic mentality of the East;
- The subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its “gaze to the heights, not daring to raise to the truth of being;”
- The difficulty in understanding and accepting the presence of definitive and eschatological events in history;
- The metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal Logos, reduced to a mere appearing of God in history;
- The eclecticism of theologians, who uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and theological contexts, without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth;
- The tendency to read, and to interpret, Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church (§4).
Needless to say, these statements themselves are a good review of the
theology and philosophy behind the rejection of the specifically
Catholic understanding of revelation. The document locates the
background of arguments that, sooner or later, end up by denying
essential positions of revelation. The courage to protect revelation
includes the courage to state clearly what is revealed, and the reasons
why it is credible.
The Koran, for example, denies both the Trinity and the Incarnation
of the Man God. Indeed, it not only denies them, but forbids their
expression. In the name of ecumenism, we often underestimate the
virulence with which the Cross, and divinity of Christ, are denied in
most segments of Islam. Calling Jesus a “prophet” here—as also occurs in
liberal Christianity—is designed precisely to deny what is being taught
in this document, that Jesus was not just a prophet, but the Son of
God.
In the light of this view that Christ was only a prophet—a view
obviously itself developed centuries after the events of Christ’s
life—it is necessary to affirm that Christ was not a simply a prophet
(as in the Koran), nor was he a revolutionary, nor a nice guy, nor a
deluded madman. The separation of the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of
history, so dear to much modern theology, is, as the document says,
simply untenable on the basis of the text itself. The Christian
dispensation “will never pass away” (§5). The Koran’s version of another
dispensation, replacing the Old and New Testaments, is simply untenable
on its own, and on the grounds of the New Testament.
Nor are all religions, including Christianity, just so many partial
revelations of something which none of them, by themselves, can
completely grasp. There may be, and often is, some truth in most
religions—from any era or in any part of the world. The Church does not
deny this, but rather affirms it. But the only salvific message about
salvation, in its fullness, is given in Christ (§6). Moreover, we should
try to express exactly what it means when we say that “Christ is true
God, and true man.” We often need philosophy—usually Greek philosophy—to
assist us. In using such terms, we do not betray, but fulfill, the
intent of Scripture.
“The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken
in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he
who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God” (§6). Those religions
and systems that would say that God is so ineffable that he cannot be
spoken of—so that we must lapse into silence concerning God—do not
reckon with the significance of the Incarnation. The fact is that the
Son of Man did use human speech, and used it accurately. This still
grants that there is much more to be said, even when we have spoken
rightly.
Theological faith, our personal adherence to God, and the “beliefs”
of other religions are not equivalent. “The distinction between
theological faith, and belief in the other religions, must be firmly
held” (§7). This position does not say that, therefore, nothing in other
religions is valid, but rather that the central and coherent fullness
of God’s revelation is in Christ, and nowhere else. Non-revealed
religions are still groping for what God is. They belong to the virtue
of pietas: what man naturally owes to God. Christian revelation
in this sense is not a religion. It is initially God seeking man, not
man seeking God, though both have their proper places (§7).
Some writers want to maintain that the books of other religions are
also “inspired.” Often, the reason they want to maintain this view is
because they despair of the Christian mission in the world. If all are
to be saved, they argue, the only way this can happen is if the books
and rites of other faiths are equally salvific with the Christian books.
The Church, however, reserves the term “inspiration” to the Old and New
Testaments alone (§8). It does not deny that good things can be found
in these other books, but not the proper explanation of what God has
revealed. Nor does this mean that all men are not called to the same
end. Citing the famous passage from Gaudium et Spes §22, the
document states that God will “not fail” to make ways known to them. But
the source of these ways is not independent of Christ, and his relation
to the human race. “The sacred books of other religions, which, in
actual fact, direct and nourish the existence of their followers,
receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace
which they contain” (§8).
Other theories want to “elevate” the Holy Spirit to a position
independent of Christ and His Church. The document has no trouble in
admitting that the range of the Spirit, and grace, is outside the
limited boundaries of the visible Church. Jesus is not just another
pious or holy figure, along with others (§9). “These theses (that say he
is) are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of
faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth,
son of Mary, and he alone, is the son and the Word of the Father” (§10).
Nor is it possible to maintain that the Word of God, the Logos, is one thing, and Jesus, the man, is another. They are one and the same.
There is but one salvific program that is revealed: that is in
Christ, who is true man. He is the sole, universal redeemer. Any theory
of redemption must pass through him (§11). This is why some theories of
the Holy Spirit, providing an alternate way of redemption, are
untenable. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. There is one redemption
effected by the Trinity, for one purpose: that all men might be saved.
“There are also those who propose the hypothesis of an economy of the
Holy Spirit, with a more universal breadth than that of the Incarnate
Word, crucified and risen. This position also is contrary to the
Catholic faith, which, on the contrary, considers the salvific
incarnation of the Word a Trinitarian event” (§12). Even from the
beginning of the world, as well as in areas not yet evangelized, the
presence of the Holy Spirit is always directed to the incarnational
event. The Church has no trouble in admitting that the work of the
Spirit, even now, ranges freely over the earth; but its purpose is the
same redemption in Christ. There is but one “divine economy.”
The salvific mission of Christ is universal, being one within itself.
With rather dry words, the document reads: “The thesis which denies the
unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is
also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation” (§13). The
constant teaching is that salvation will finally come through the
sacrifice of the Cross. There are not “many” ways to salvation. All
salvation will be through the grace of Christ, through the plan of the
Father in sending him, and his Spirit, into the world.
“Those solutions that propose a salvific action of God, beyond the
unique mediation of Christ, would be contrary to Christian and Catholic
faith” (§14). This reaffirmation is not stated with any arrogance or
defensiveness. It is just a report of what the texts say, and of what
the Church has always taught. It is one thing to say that “I do not
agree with this, or I do not think it applies to me.” What is of concern
here is whether this unconcern is what the Church teaches, on the basis
of its mandate in Scripture and tradition.
Some propose that “theology should avoid the use of terms like
‘unity’, ‘universality’, and ‘absoluteness’, which give the impression
of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific
event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality,
however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation” (§15).
The final two sections of Dominus Jesus have to do with the
Church, and its role in our salvation. The Church was established: she
is an organized society under the successor of Peter and the bishops
(§16). “Therefore, there exists a single Church ofChrist” (§17). The
mission of this Church remains to make known this single revelation to
all men (§18). We may not like this establishment, or think we have a
better plan. Rather, what is at issue here is: “What did Christ do?” The
document states the difference between the Church, and churches and
ecclesiastical bodies (§17). And there is no doubt that all Christians
should worship in one Church.
The document is careful to distinguish between the Church,
theKingdomofGod, and theKingdomofChrist(§18). These are biblical terms,
and technical ones. Christ, as the man-God, is the center. The Church is
not identified with theKingdomofGod, but is not apart from it. It is
within it, as a body set up by Christ, to carry out his mission in this
world. The document notes a modern “kingdom-oriented” thesis that wants
to downplay both Christ and the Church, in order to get everyone into
the Kingdom of God. Again, “these theses are contrary to Catholic faith
because they deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the
Church have with the kingdom of God” (§19). In wanting to gather
everyone into the kingdom, they bypass the means and institutions that
Christ set up in the world to accomplish what he offered to mankind.
Finally, the Church is not just one way, among other ways, to
salvation. If there is going to be an eternal destiny for all mankind,
as there is, it cannot avoid a relationship with Christ. Dominus Jesus
states that the Church is necessary for salvation, but this doctrine
should not “be set against the universal salvific will of God” (§20).
The true Church, established by Christ, “subsists in” the Catholic
Church. This does not mean that grace and the Spirit are not operative
beyond the visible Church’s structure, but it does mean that grace and
the Spirit are not setting up some alternative way to salvation that
somehow bypasses what the Church is. “It would be contrary to the faith
to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those
constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church,
or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be
converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God”
(§21).
How all of this is to be coherently explained is something for theologians to ponder. Dominus Jesus is
concerned with these issues, but within the parameters of what is given
in revelation itself. We may not see how God’s salvific will—that all
be saved—is explained within the context of what Christ said about
baptism, and the Church. But any explanations should begin with these
givens. Otherwise, we have, in effect, some other position that was
established by Christ.
“With the coming of the Savior Jesus Christ, God has willed that the
Church, founded by him, be the instrument for the salvation of all
humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which
the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it
rules out, in a radical way, the mentality of indifferentism,
characterized by a religious relativism, which leads to the belief that
‘one religion is as good as another’” (§22). The universal plan of God
for salvation means that the Church must always, even today, be
“missionary” to all peoples in ways that respect the freedom,
intelligence, and customs of others, but which also include the core of
revelation.
Thus, if it is asked about its truth, the Church must speak it. This
truth is what it owes to the people of the world, who look for a
salvation from their sins. The document concludes by citing the Declaration on Religious Liberty
(§1) from Vatican II: “We believe that this one true religion continues
to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus
entrusted the task of spreading it among all peoples’” (§23).
Looking back over a decade since the publication of Dominus Jesus,
we can note that in the meantime, we witness the rise of a militant
Islam, the increased and aggressive secularism that no longer
“tolerates,” but replaces religion, and the continued decline in births
in formerly Christian areas. We also see the growing doubt, in many
quarters, that the Church is the mediator of salvation. As Benedict
wrote in Spe Salvi, we see a secular eschatology, not the one given through the Lord Jesus, but invented by man himself.
We notice that the alternatives to Christianity are pale imitations
of what men really want, which is eternal life. It is refreshing that
the Church still has the vigor, in her heart and in her head, to
reaffirm that the salvation, offered to mankind through Christ, remains
the only one which answers the longing in men’s restless souls. Surely,
the Church is right to reaffirm what it is to the nations, whether they
listen or not. To repeat: “The truth about God is not abolished or
reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique,
full, and complete, because he, who speaks and acts, is the Incarnate
Son of God” (§6).
1 Cf. for an earlier comment on this document, James V. Schall, “On Being Faithful to Revelation,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, CI (March 2002), 22-31. ↩
